1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 102,173,001.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this case, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The "Witness E" of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be the "Witness E of the court of first instance".

The 4th page 4 of the first instance judgment "in this court," "in this court," shall be "in the court of first instance".

The 10th page 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as "appraisalF") shall be referred to as "F of the first instance trial appraiser".

The fourth [Attachment 1] No. 6] of the first instance court's decision is moving "ELI" into "elevator".

The "Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party" in the first instance judgment is all advanced as "Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party".

In the first instance judgment, the part 8 pages 2 of the 8th instance judgment " is likely to be " (i.e., the defendant's assertion to the effect that the rate of liquidated damages under the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party shall not apply mutatis mutandis to the contract for construction works of this case. However, although the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the construction works of this case were delayed due to the plaintiff's cause attributable to the contractor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, the above argument of the defendant is without reason to further examine)."

The first instance court's 9th 3rd 201, "Jinman" in the second 3rd 2016, shall be deemed "Jinman on July 2016."

The first instance court's 10 pages 11 and 13 pages 2 are as follows.

C. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the testimony of witness E of the first instance trial and the appraisal of appraiser F in the part acknowledged the cause of the claim for damages in lieu of defect repair as a result of the appraisal, the plaintiff performed the instant construction, and the following [the plaintiff performed a partial non-performance, modified construction, or defective construction as shown in Table 2].